A Closer Look at Cosmo’s War on Men With Guns

As I revealed in an earlier post, Cosmopolitan’s March issue insults Cosmo girls with a gun rights beat down. The Bloomberg-financed anti-gun agitprop includes a website: Singled Out. The website contains a “myths” vs. “facts” section. It’s kinda like disarmament for dummies. As such, it offers keen insight into the arguments deployed by the enemies of firearms freedom. Like this . . .

Notice that the so-called MYTH — strengthening gun control laws won’t stop criminals from getting guns — is a FACT. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Chicago. Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and Trenton, New Jersey. Four cities where gun control reigns supreme and gang bangers have no problems accessing firearms.

Equally, gun rights advocates aren’t against strengthening “gun laws” per se. They’re for strengthening laws against criminal use of a firearm. Or, at the least, enforcing the existing laws against criminal use of a firearm. Gun rights advocates oppose laws which infringe on their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

This MYTH is also a FACT. For one thing, armed police are “good guys with guns.” For another, the lowest estimate of annual defensive gun uses (DGUs) is 55k (just over 150 per day). The highest estimate is 1.5 million (4,109 per day). There are thousands of documented cases where good guys with guns have stopped bad guys.

Cosmo’s claim that high school teachers aren’t “action heroes” is snide, defeatist and wrong. High school teachers can use a guns to defend life. The you boil it down, Cosmo’s argument against armed self-defense is “I couldn’t defend innocent life with a firearm. Neither could you. So no one should be able to.”

Re: good guys with guns, Cosmo’s REALITY CHECK asks “Can they stop all shootings?” Antis lobby for gun control under the banner “even if it saves one life!” Here they claim that armed self-defense isn’t valuable unless it stops all bad guys with guns. Hypocrites.

The FACT cited above isn’t a fact. It’s an opinion. One that suggests that most abused women buying a firearm will have it used against them. T’ain’t necessarily so.

In actual fact, there are no statistics on this possibility. Equally, no matter what the odds that a woman’s self defense firearm may be used against her, it’s her right to choose. Something Cosmo supports in other life-or-death areas, but not here.

The REALITY CHECK says a woman is more likely to be killed “if a gun is present in a domestic violence situation.” Wait. Whose gun? I’d bet dollars to donuts that the majority of women gunned down by abusers were shot by the abuser’s gun.

Contrary to Cosmo’s assertion, the real issue here IS whether or not law-abiding women can buy guns. I mean, the whole point of this Cosmo website is to argue for gun control, which restricts a woman’s right to buy a gun.

No MYTH here. As breitbart.com reports (citing FBI data) “In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.”

Cosmo’s REALITY CHECK shifts the stat from “rifles” to “firearms.” That’s cheating. Even if we group all firearms-related fatalities together, and set aside the fact that majority of the murders involve criminal interaction (i.e. gang-banging), medhelp‘s math tells us the odds of dying from something firearms-related (1 in 300) are a lot less than the odds of dying from . . .

exposure to narcotics and hallucinogens (1 in 289)

a car accident (1 in 272)

falling (1 in 184)

accidental poisoning and drug overdose (1 in 139)

stroke (1 in 28)

cancer (1 in 7)

heart disease (1 in 6)

California has a gun registry (as does New Jersey, New York and others). The Golden State also runs a special police unit that checks the state’s gun registry to confiscate guns from prohibited persons. And other gun owners who aren’t prohibited. Mistakenly and incompetently, admittedly. But it’s not paranoia to believe gun registries enable gun confiscation. It’s common sense.

comments

Well, at least Cosmo writers are honest about wanting to “shut down” all opposing viewpoints. The progs in Washington keep on preaching this two-way “conversation” we’re supposed to have about the further erosion of our rights, in exchange for which we get Jack Scheiße. I want my cake back dammit! (if you don’t get the reference, read and enjoy: http://tinyurl.com/op3yp2c)

Okay… Most gun owning guys lean conservative. I think many would want nothing to do with the type of shallow caddy bitches that read Cosmo anyway. Plenty of metrosexual half males in the city to boss around for ladies who read that rag

Yeah, that was my first thought upon seeing the photo of the nasty sneering lady at the top of the website. I’m supposed to feel rejected because _she_ doesn’t want my gun-lovin’ self?! Liberals worship the Lysistrata story, since they believe that sex explains everything.

COMPROMISE: When two parties each make a sacrifice that results in a permanent solution to their differences.
WAR OF ATTRITION: When one party seeks to conquer the other through a prolonged series of minor victories, gaining ground each time while giving none up.

Let’s be clear on the terminology here. A “compromise” that results in one party coming back to the bargaining table the next day seeking further concessions IS NOT A COMPROMISE.

“And given said women made a good choice when picking a mate, having a man that owns a gun is comforting.”

THAT, my good sir, is the sound of Lit’l Boy knocking a few good pegs off their entire premise.

Good job. No; excellent job.

This WHOLE thing is about “blame the man.” For everything. Nowhere in any of this crap is there any responsibility resting on the woman’s shoulders.

And, no, before someone’s knee jerks so hard they kick themselves in the face, I am not “victim blaming” or saying domestic violence is the woman’s fault.

What I AM saying is that solution to life’s problems generally involve looking inward. Do any of the victimized women this article is intending to reach ever sit down, in a quiet, introspective moment, and ask themselves, “What decisions have I made that have led me to this point? What can I do differently to alter this circumstance?”

Where is the personal responsibility? Where is the true personal empowerment?

By putting the focus entirely on “the man” and whether or not he has a gun, they are saying nothing other than “women are powerless; to fix this, ALL the changes have to come from the man’s side of the equation.”

It is a disgusting worldview, really. When I am not around my wife and daughter (and son, for that matter), I want to know they can face the world’s challenges…which, unfortunately, includes the possibility of violent attack.

I would be derelict in my duty as a husband and father to tell the women in my life that life happens TO them with no ‘control’ BY them. Cosmo and that entire ilk are just…just…well, disgusting. Hate to repeat myself, but that’s the word. Vile is another.

My wife chose a mate that will fight for the survival of her and our family. She knew that going in, supported it, embraced it and was part of it. She’s a strong woman, personally and professionally, and she would absolutely sneer at this crap from the feminists.

Oh, and Cosmo? Another hint your readers might like to know: strong men that are both willing and capable of making life long commitment don’t find weak women “attractive.” At all.

You described one of the reasons I’ve always liked “Bond Girls.” They’re strong, ready for travel, and love adventure. Of course they’re also universally out of my league attractive, but that’s a side issue. More or less.

If these are the talking points you get my advice is tell em to find the curb. One should not be interested in a woman who believes in a lack of self sufficiency. Otherwise, do like my brother in law did and do a range date.

So Cosmopolitan isn’t telling women to consider differening ideas but is giving them talking points. I feel like women might find this condescending but they buy Cosmopolitan so I’m not sure how to finish that thought without sounding sexiest.

The whole point of all this anti-gun agitprop is to elect Hitlery (the “elect me because I have a vagina” candidate) as POTUS. The focus of her campaign is on guns because she has nothing else to run on.

The economy sucks, the Mideast is an even bigger disaster than it’s always been, race relations are the worst they’ve been since the 1950s and the whole country is roiling. So, guns it is.

Once the crusty old hag is permanently retired, this crap will end. But if she isn’t retired, if by some act of satan she’s elected, there will be blood. Just not hers. She’s way too old for that.

And what’s up with the photo of the sneering woman? Reminds me of a homely gal I dated once. She had these red spots all over her body. So I asked her, “why do you have red spots all over your body?”
She says, “oh those. Those are from guys touching me with 10 foot poles”.

I’ve argued the “Why bother strengthening gun laws…Why outlaw bank robbery(murder, etc.)” by pointing out that most “strengthening of gun laws” is attempting to be _preventative_ while outlawing bank robbery, murder, etc. is _remedial_. The former is impossible, as is evidenced by prisoners in penitentiaries that have gotten their hands on some type of firearm.

Outlawing the possession of a _thing_ is a fool’s errand, while outlawing and punishing an _act_ is the only practical answer.

Gun control laws just create more victimless crime. Bank robbery actually has a victim(s). It hard to get statists to understand that most victimless crimes, probably shouldn’t be crimes. My ownership of a gun victimizes no one. If they try to go into the collectivist BS, I would inform them that we are a nation based natural rights and individual liberty. Not undefined and ever changing “collective rights” given and taken at the whim of the state.

“Criminals will just get guns anyway” is an idea based on criminals will still be able to easily get guns. You can make guns, you can print guns, you can fab guns, you can buy guns out of the back of a trunk. The fact is – it’s easy to get a gun and relatively a quiet and anonymous action that would be difficult to enforce. Their rebuttal “that’s like saying why outlaw bank robbery, bank robbers are going to steal anyways,” Is a deflection from the point we are making. In modern times it is difficult to rob a bank and get away with it. But it is easy to get a gun even if they are banned. We are not stating that because a law isn’t effective we shouldn’t have any laws – we are saying that this law is ineffective and mostly unenforceable and we aren’t making an analogy here.

Real men dont fall into a womans frame and explain their life choices and hobbies. Only beta losers rationalize their decisions to a woman. If your that guy that asks for permission every time you want to change positions in the bedroom, go ahead and be a second rate man and justify your lifestyle.

Any woman coming at you with these questions and sassy responses already made up her mind long ago that you are wrong. She is following a script. You are not going to teach her or show her anything.

A good woman would ask questions out of curiosity, listen, then maybe follow your lead and try out your hobby. If a girl comes at you with cosmo one liners, dare her to try shooting and call her closed minded. Then give her a patriotic pump and dump…

Enough with the beta and alpha references to men. People are are being socially engineered to think along these lines, and by doing so, you play right into the agenda. Today’s “alpha” male is being more and more defined as someone who is sexually dominant in the bedroom, refuses to have children, and refuses to psychologically mature past attaining sexual conquests. In the animal kingdom, alpha males are the males that reproduce, period. We are being socially conditioned out of our innate instincts to reproduce. Self defense, gun ownership is another example of this kind of social conditioning.

This one bothers me the most. Not only is it opinion, it is a misogynistic statement as well. Remember those Nike commercials back in the day with Mia Hamm and Michael Jordan? “Anything you can do I can do better” That was the female empowerment message that women can do things just as good as Men. This includes shooting…and there are plenty of Pro Women shooters to prove this point. The irony is that anti-gun folk evangelize the Pro-Choice/Equality for Women message, but they do not give Women credit for being able to competently handle a firearm. If I was a Woman, I would be totally offended by that statement. Nobody wants to be deemed as incompetent…Man or Woman.

I would add that bank robbery is something only criminals would want to do, but there’s nothing wrong with having a gun. The end result of the gun restrictions is that only the law-abiding are affected, but only criminals are affected by a law against robbing banks.

So, Cosmo & Bloomie are off indoctrinating people into a pattern-recognition / keyed-response bleat thing. Well, apparently “thoughtful” doesn’t mean what I thought it meant.

Kudos to Dear Overlord(s) in breaking down the logical, rhetorical, and factual failures of these Pavlov-bleats. Not a bad fisking. Not too bad at all.

Another move that goes right at the non-thinking being programmed into these useful idiots is to go off script. (It’s called a “pattern interrupt” by some people.) They’re reciting words they’ve been taught. “Four legs good; Two legs bad!”

If you can get them to engage their brains, you stand a chance of getting them in the “How do I know that?” mindset. From there, facts, rhetoric, logic can maybe get some traction.

Of course we shouldn’t be surprised that pattern-match / programmed response is what the advocates are going for. It’s what Cosmo does. It’s what Bloomie does. It’s what MA-whatever does. Hijacking a whole magazine to program some more flying monkeys seems a lot of work, though. Can’t they just install a chip, or something? Easier.

Anyway, pattern interrupt like this:

“A good guy with a gun is the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun.”

“I’m a school teacher, not an action hero.”

The script being set up here is “Of course you can…” More subtly, they’re *refuting* an argument you didn’t make “You can be an action hero.” Yet more subtly, they’re implying that *you* think of self defense as being like a cartoon action hero. There’s some mighty fine language crafting in that there consensus manufacturing. Mighty fine, indeed.

Some better responses after ” … action hero.” might be:

“I wasn’t talking about you.” <- pattern interrupt.

Now, there's an opening to follow up with the useful facts: "There are 50k to 1.5 million successful DGUs in the US each year, depending on who's statistics you use. Either way, that's a lot. I'm pretty sure you didn't do any of them, so having good guys with guns do some good, doesn't depend on you being an action hero."

You gotta interrupt the script to have a place for the facts. BUT if you unwind every implication, assumption, and aspersion in their little vignette, you'll be there all day. AND all those calumnies by implication are distractions. They're there to hijack your brain at minimum. And at worst they are bait, to make you look more a boob if you go after them.

"Um, I'm talking about guns, not spandex." <- pattern interrupt.

This is better than "Who's talking about super heroes?", which kind of makes the same point. "Guns" and "spandex" are concrete things. Concrete things are better for getting people out of trances. This version also drags in something funny – sorry, guys, spandex is almost always funny rather than hot. Funny is a better script disruptor.

Best part of all, if objecto-woman has ever worn spandex – likely – "spandex" pulls in sense memory, which ties up even more of her brain, and amplifies the ridiculousness of Cosmo-Dolly (<- "Dolly" was the name of the first experimental cloned sheep.) casting herself as some kind of superhero. Most people feel decidedly not super-hero-y in spandex. (Not "objecto-woman" – the gun-bro-dissing super hero mutant formed after a Cosmo gun-issue paper-cut.) BUT, objecto-woman already said, "What am I" casting herself as a superhero. Part of her brain is still there. So *use* that.

This one jumps right on the gender contrast they're creating, plus the ambiguity helps. Not talking about "you" because not a guy or not good. On-point ambiguity makes them actually think. It stops the script.

This isn't the first time some finely honed language has emerged from the Bloomie-backed citizen-disarmament advocacy. I don't recall this level of skill in any of his political work while in office. Clearly, they've hired some very talented people. They are not playing around.

And I think you are right. They’ve got some mover-shakers behind the scenes crafting this stuff. It’s STILL full of ____, but it does tend to get subtle sometimes.

They’ve had decades of practice. This is the same kind of technique that has been used on college campuses to push Statist/Socialist agendas for years. It looks like someone is putting their “degree” to use.

The thing I find puzzling is who is doing the crafting. The edu-system product is excellent sheep: highly-skilled, committed bleaters of what they’ve been pattern-scan / response – trained into emitting, in a lifetime of pellet feedings. Who’s designing the payload?

They don’t teach this stuff any more, although, ironically, one of the feeder-streams is Chomsky’s academic work (back when he did academic work.) For a treat, bone up on the work on language that made his academic reputation. Then apply his own models to the stuff he’s done since.

It’s at least as entertaining with Lakoff, and less work. Literally. (<- old, formal definition. I no more admit of the "new" definition of "literally" than I admit the existence of any Matrix movie after the first. Nope. Didn't happen.) Within pages of asserting "evil language tricks the bad people use" he's in full-throat, singing the same scales and arpeggios, just hung on a different tune.

MYTH: “I have individual rights and liberties that are not granted but guaranteed by the bill of rights.”
FACT: “THE STATE IS YOUR GOD, THE COLLECTIVE IS YOUR IDOL. BOW BEFORE IT AND GIVE THEN YOUR SOUL AND YOUR LIBERTY.”

Based on the teaser article titles on the covers, Cosmo should be re-titled “Popular Slut.” I’m not sure why they would get into the topic of guns or why anyone would listen to them if they did. The magazine seems to be about how to indulge young women’s seemingly unquenchable vanity, how to get laid and how to enjoy it when you do. There is no solution to the first, it is a never-ending quest, the second should be no problem if your standards are that low and the third may just not be possible for gals that are so self-obsessed. So that rag is a complete waste of paper and ink.

Ok, so I went there – I was hoping to gain a little insight, and I did. Now, of course I have to read “Gates of Fire” in its entirety again to get the stupid out of my head, but I got what I expected out of it. For instance, this quote was featured on their website:

“If you’re the victim of a violent crime . . . the burden of stopping that assault is not going to be on the person committing that assault, not at that moment in time. The burden of stopping that assault is on the victim, it is on the victim. – CAM EDWARDS, NRA RADIO HOST (SOURCE)”

That says volumes. They are featuring it as a way to show how unreasonable and how nutty “gunsplainers” are. I mean to the singledout.org reader – it’s ridiculous right? It says, “Look at these men, blaming the victim!! As if it’s the victim’s fault they got raped, robbed, whatever!”

They miss the point entirely – personal responsibility. It’s a concept they have very little to do with. In their world, nothing is their fault and everything can be prevented if they could just make more laws outlawing things like guns. So while we go around and say, you are your own best defense and it’s up to you to protect yourself, they say the government will and should take care of me and I don’t have to worry about the repercussions of my bad decisions.

They are literally falling all over themselves to give up more and more of their freedoms just to feel safer. Not be safer mind you, simply to feel safer. I pity them when that illusion all comes crashing down and they wonder how they got there. They won’t have a clue, won’t blame themselves and will latch on to anyone or anything that says – it’s not your fault, XYZ did it! We can ban it, make it (more) illegal and pass more laws so this never happens again. But it will, again and again. Because they don’t believe in personal responsibility.

Is there a German or Scandinavian Cosmo? I wonder if they post articles about how their local men are to blame for roaming rape gangs of refugees or how it would be greatly appreciated by their rapists if they could get a finger up one of their butts.

Intentionally fostering weakness among women while simultaneously teaching them to hate their local males won’t serve anyone very well save the hyper-misogynistic bronze aged “Allah wills it” crowd soon to be imported to a suburb near you. Maybe sweeten that a little with a dick doughnut.

Just from their fundamental misunderstanding of what a “fact” actually is, I would hope that whatever readers they have with any measure of intelligence don’t fall for this. But hey, it’s early and I feel like coming up with my own responses:

1. Equating “stronger gun laws” to “bank robbery” implies that the process to even get a gun is equivalent to robbing a bank. “Malum prohibitum” vs “malum in se”.

2. A gun is the only thing that will stop a bad guy. Every mass shooting stopped with a gun, whether it was from a good guy or from the bad guy turning it on himself. No one is asking you to be the good guy, but you have the opportunity.

3. Case by case scenario. Obviously the “fact” response means that woman doesn’t trust herself with a gun. That’s fine. She should probably consider alternative options to rid her life of abuse. A gun is, after all, the great equalizer. You’d think Cosmo would advocate for something like that, but judging by all these responses it sounds like they would rather have women be helpless and shirk any sort of responsibility for their personal protection.

The last two points I won’t even attempt to address, TTAG did an already phenomenal job there.

COSMO is just rehashing bad arguments we’ve heard before….Ho Hum! The undercurrent in all this that really annoys/angers me is that they are saying it is acceptable to impose your will on another free person and expect them to give up their rights just because you say so, as none of the arguments offered has been shown to be factually valid.

The crux of the leftist, Marxist, progressive, socialist agenda is to convince people to give up their individual liberties and rights and subordinate them to the State so the State can control their actions, choices and thoughts. The goal is to destroy the very heart of what makes Americans “American”. It is a betrayal of principles that intends for each of us to believe we are inferior to others and incapable of rational thought, so we need our “betters” to tell us what to do and what to believe. It is the antithesis of Human freedom and personal dignity.

For us POTG the core of the core is our belief we can and should stand on our own, be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones and that right underpins all the rest of our rights and liberties. We respect and refuse to wantonly violate those rights and liberties in all other persons, and these principles are the reason we so mightily resent and object to Michael Bloomberg’s “wannabe tyranny” and this garbage Cosmopolitan Magazine is publishing on his behalf (and likely on his dime).

Too bad they won’t run a vaxplainer, based on their no. 2 propaganda point, “a man who repeatedly and condescendingly blames the victim of a gun related death or injury” could just as accurately read,”a person who repeatedly and condescendingly blames the victim’s family for a vaccine related death or injury”. But they won’t, because the big money is behind both public disarmament and the government/private industry partnership taking control over the public’s medical decision making.

Uh… no. A mere analogy does not disprove the point. It is difficult to rob banks, it is easy to get a gun. A gun can be stolen, printed, fabricated, and sold out of the back of a trunk relatively quietly and anonymously and the action would be difficult to enforce. The bottom line – criminals will have guns. This makes the law very much ineffective. It does create hassles for law abiding gun owners with no intent to harm. Also, as Robert has stated above. This “Myth” is actually fact – not myth.

REALITY CHECK
In the 18 states that require background checks for all handguns, there are 46% fewer women shot to death by intimate partners than states that don’t. Closing the loophole in the rest of the country will help save women’s lives.

This has nothing to do with the fact or myth above – not sure where this random point came from. I would like to see the source of this information – which they conveniently don’t provide. Also – “Shot to death?” So even if they aren’t killed with a gun, they can still be killed with a knife or a club, etc. Sounds like these women need to take action to protect themselves. Also – correlation doesn’t equal causation. homicide rates vary greatly state to state and source of the study (CSGV) can take advantage through averages. Statistics can be made into whatever you want them to make, depending on how they are presented.

The thing is, this is not even a true analogy. Robbing a bank is a crime in that it is directly using force to take another’s possessions. A criminal owning a gun is only a crime in that society can no longer trust them to use a gun in a lawful manner. It doesn’t manifest itself as harm to anyone until it is used in force against another, which is the real crime. Gun control laws don’t prevent criminals from owning guns, or even using them. They’re criminals, breaking laws is what they do! It’s just something else the DA can use to tack on more time to be negotiated with in a plea bargain. The only effect of gun control is to affect the behavior of the law abiding by infringing on their natural rights.

The bank robbery comparison is monumentally stupid. Outlawing the robbing of banks does not infringe on anybody’s right. Outlawing guns does. The proper comparison to outlawing the robbing of banks is outlawing the murdering of people. The proper comparison to outlawing guns altogether would be outlawing banks altogether.

Another one of these stupid comparisons is when some gun controller says sarcastically that murder shouldn’t be outlawed, confusing that outlawing murder is different from outlawing killing altogether for any reason. Outlawing murder infringes on nobody’s right. Outlawing killing for any reason, and hence for self-defense, does infringe on people’s rights.

I don’t know about you guys, but this video finally convinced me that I need to carry more than one gun. That dual shoulder holster setup is really turning my crank. When combined with my current carry gun I could unleash a real fury of ass-whoopin’. Can anyone say dual-wield G40 MOS?! Yah baby – Cosmo just sold a few more guns and accessories.